The Instigator
C-L-Fox
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Lesterfreeman
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

SOPA and PIPA bills should be stopped

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Lesterfreeman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,583 times Debate No: 20478
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

C-L-Fox

Pro

First round is for acceptance only, as Pro I will be arguing that SOPA and PIPA bills should be stopped and Con will give reasons why it should be passed, I am doing this in hopes to provide some exposure to an American issue that has global effects.

As stated First round is acceptance only
Second round is for arguments
Third is for rebuttals and final thoughts
I'm hoping for a short but informational debate
Thank you
Lesterfreeman

Con


Thank to my opponent for setting up this debate
I did this in the hopes that everybody(including myself) will come out more informed about these two bills.

Heads up to my opponent, The resolution calls for these bills to be stopped. While I look forward to exciting clash on the controversial issues, I will be arguing against the resolution.


This house does not believe SOPA and PIPA should be stopped, but continue in their course through the legislature.


With this I accept the Debate,

and my role as devils advocate
Thank you


Debate Round No. 1
C-L-Fox

Pro

Thank you Con for accepting this debate.

I would like to start off with some of the big problems with these bills that make them illogical to pass.

First off the fact that the bills allow any business, that can prove any copyrighting has been done on a certain page, can shut down the entire site.

Second the fact that because of my first point many international sites would be brought down making these bills an international concern to great for just America to handle.

Third the fact that many sites that have copyrighted material have no control of what their users put up. ex: facebook, youtube, photobucket ect. ect.

Fourth that the main supporter of the bill itself has copyrighted material as the background of his website.

Fifth the fact that the amount of people voting in America is decreasing with every election and the Internet is one of the big ways America has been turning it around.

Sixth the fact that bringing down international sites like this destroys the global community that is now (because of Internet) stronger then ever before.

Seventh the fact that many of the people voting on this bill are old men and woman who have never used the Internet themselves and are just scared of it.

So it is because of these seven points that I think that SOPA and PIPA should be buried. As shown all these points show that the people voting on these bills don't really know what there voting on and that if passed they will decrease our own social awareness of our country and destroy the global community that the Internet has developed over the years.

I now give the debate to the Con,
Thank you again for accepting I hope for some good points to come out of this to help everyone get a better understanding for these bills.
Lesterfreeman

Con

Thank you to my opponent. This should be an excellent opportunity for me,and hopefully to everyone watching too, to learn about this important piece of legislation.

first,I will present my case
Then examine my opponents

The two pieces of legislation, SOPA(House) and PIPA(Senate), are still being debated on the floor. Nobody wants to create 1984 and censor the Internet. The pleas from companies like Google and Wikapedia are not at what the proposed bills aim to do, but in their possible unintended effects should they be abused. Its the vagueness that worries the technology companies. The provisions of the bill, they argue, should be specific enough that even it it was abused, Sites like facebook and debate.org would not be in danger of a shutdown over a misunderstanding or small oversight.

Here is my case: The resolution calls for the Bills to be stopped. I disagree. These bills should continue in their course through the legislature. Why, inquiring minds want to know, would you want such an ungodly piece of legislation floating around the halls of congress, why would you want that? There are 435 members in the house of representatives that participate in a legislative process that is annoying slow, but amazingly thorough. The proposed bill in the house, SOPA, has already withered countless ammedments. The latest 8 ammednets, under the name the managerial amendments(1), fundamentally change the substance of the bill. These amendments are specific to addressing the concerns that this bill would cause unintended harm( e.g. shutting down the L.A. times for a copyrighted photo a user posted in an obscure comment section)
This believes the debate should continue. Concerned parties, companies, and citizens should keep coming forward and the amendments should keep coming until we have a bill that protects protects the rights of property owners but doesn't encroach on the liberty of others. Government will succumb to the apathy that some citizens have adopted towards regulating the Internet. Indeed the task of designing a mechanism that protects rights but doesn't hinder the freedom or take away the liberty of others is a difficult. One that must be approached with patience. It can be done. The world we inhabit is vastly more complex than the Internet, it does not stop us from moving forward to design mechanism that work, laws that work. In the real world theft is deterrent very effectively without encroaching on the liberties of others. If we can do that in the ever more difficult environment of the REAL world, then we have no need to despair in addressing the cyber world.


to review my opponents arguments:

1. " bills allow any business, that can prove any copyrighting has been done on a certain page, can shut down the entire site."

While that's oversimplified, that is infact already law. If my opponents is against such regulations he might consider arguing against the Digital Millennium Copyright Act(2) We have all experienced the effects of this law.
you find yourself listening to music on youtube. on such an occasion you may have clicked on a good song, like "heard it through the grapevine' by Credence clearwater Revival, and to your great annoyance rather than hearing a thumping bass line your greeted with a message declaring that your beloved content has been removed due violations of copyright infringement. A pity you think, just before you just click on another video that hasn't been censored yet.
This is already law. The businesses that own material send out cease and desist letters to companies that are unknowingly hosting copyrighted content. Those websites, like Google and youtube, are pretty good about removing the content. Should a website neglect those cease and desist letters then a judge may ORDER a website to remove the content or risk shutdown. and rightly so!
this point is non unique to SOPA and I would ask the voters to note its non pertinent to this debate.

2. The shutdown of Mega upload proves that the international community is able to work together to bring down pirating websites. This is a real life example of how your example has no merit. I would also like to add that just because something is difficult to enforce doesn't mean it should be legal. Preventing Murder is hard, but we try anyway.


3. Lets dispel that myth right now:
"The reach of the bill does not cover any U.S. sites, including Facebook,Twitter,eBay,Youtube, and many other popular domestic dsestintion. It focus only on sites that are beyond the reach of U.S. law" Amendment:Application to Foreign sites only(3)(http://judiciary.house.gov...'s%20Amendment.pdf)

Lets step back for a second. This is an amendment that is currently on the bill, perhaps my opponent didn't look at the amendments, Its ok I don't not hold it against him. I merely wish to show how this highlights my argument:


The legislative process is working. These amendments that keep rolling in are changing the bill, as all bills before it have endured, and we have reason to believe the end product will be something that protects property rights without encroaching on the liberty of others. This is a perfect example of my argument in real life.


4. Nothing to do with the bill
5. nothing to do with the bill
6. Bringing down websites that steal copyrighted material for a profit are a necessity and a right guaranteed to all Americans, despite whatever camaraderie that may exist between the bootlegging community.
7. Our economic system demands that we protect the property of others. It demands it. despite apathy. I've already explained how despite its challenge it not as bleak as it looks



furthermore, The united is second to none in innovation. I am willing to put 100 years of American invention up against any other western civilization's 100 year period. This country has had had world changing inventions followed by world changing inventions. one after the other. Due in no small part to this countries laws, government, and economic model. This economic model not only rewards innovation, but demands it. This government not only says it prohibits the infringement of copyrights, but it is exceedingly proficient at enforcing it. These inventions do not happen by chance. The United States takes more care, time, and money into ensuring that innovators and entrepreneur's will be rewarded and recognised in America, and their products will be protected. We have examples of other countries in history who have the idea that intellectual property is everyone to own. Those countries not have a history of innovation. I am disgusted at people not even justifying pirating anymore, but actually making the argument that its a right! the inventions of others are their right to own. This is not the American way.


Thank you

I appreciate the opportunity to debate this all important topic


1. http://judiciary.house.gov...'s%20Amendment.pdf
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://judiciary.house.gov...'s%20Amendment.pdf
Debate Round No. 2
C-L-Fox

Pro

The observations made by my opponent was the fact that congress is a long process to make sure nonviolators get harmed and the google and wikipediea claims or only possible outcomes, but that my point exactly. These bills attempt to close down "sites" that have copyrighting not just the individual users.

http://judiciary.house.gov...
Sorry but i clicked this and it the computer said the site was unavailable.

I would like to point out that the opponent only mentioned things about SOPA and didn't mention PIPA.

Now for the arguments on my observations:

1) The fact is that if there is already rules and regulations against copyrighting then these bills are useless because if sites already take down copyrighted material then another bill that enforces this is illogical and useless in its self.

2) His attack on my second point is illogical because of the fact that murder isn't an INTERNATIONAL experience as this observation points to, and therefore is not valid against it.

3) What i said for my third point
"the fact that many sites that have copyrighted material have no control of what their users put up. ex: facebook, youtube, photobucket ect. ect."

What my opponite said i said:
"The reach of the bill does not cover any U.S. sites, including Facebook,Twitter,eBay,Youtube, and many other popular domestic destination. It focus only on sites that are beyond the reach of U.S. law"

now note on the fact that when my opponite twist my words it does help them but if read the way i had it it shows that i am simply stated that these sites have no control of there users and work to fix copyrights anyway.

4 & 5) My opponite stated that these don't have merit in this case but the do because the fact is that 4) if the maker of the bill has copyrighted stuff how can he fully stand against it. 5) If the bill will reduce the interactiveness between the people and its government then it has merit in this debate.

6) My opponite stated "Bringing down websites that steal copyrighted material for a profit are a necessity and a right guaranteed to all Americans, despite whatever camaraderie that may exist between the bootlegging community" but this has nothing to do with my sixth point on an international and global community that the Internet has created.

7) Yes this is the goal of the bill but because many people voting on the bill have little to no experience with the Internet the can't fully understand what their voting for.

My opponite goes on to point out that America has always made inventions and peoples intellectual ideas shouldn't be stolen. Now the fact is that Americas innovation and great inventions came from stuff that if censored in the mass way the Internet might become then it wouldn't have been invented, letters lead to revolution... what if letters had been censored, telegram lead to telephone... what if telegrams had been censored, telephone lead to radio... what if telephones had been censored, radio lead to tv... what if radio had been overly censored. So yes lets censor and stop people from "stealing intellectual property", but what happens when people cant share ideas and things cant get invented... start all over again with letters and wait another 100 years to realize that we should have never passed these bills in the first place.

So the voting issues in today's debate or as followed:

1) the fact that my opponite twisted a few of my points
2) the fact that these bad is bad for the international community
3) the fact that this would set back American innovation

Thank you for having this debate with me, i enjoyed the debate and look forward to others in the future.
Lesterfreeman

Con

Thank you to my opponent,
I want the voters to know that they are not voting for or against SOPA, they're voting for the quality of the arguments that occurred in this debate. Sometimes we are asked to defend president baltar, and sometimes we must placate and play captain Amadala.

I have no idea what the first observation says. My argument for the legislative processces is clear, I won't waste anyone's time repeating it.

I would like to point out that my opponent doesn't mention PIPA either. If he doesn't talk about green eggs

1. Your arguing a straw man. This bill isn't redundant. SOPA doesn't enforce domestic Internet sites. It applies exclusively to companies with servers offshore. That is never debated. The law your attacking has been in place for 10 years. See my argument above for clarification.

2. Mega upload was a huge international site that was shut down with multiple countries in cooperation. This is never refuted. a real life example proving your contention wrong. My point with murder was just because something is hard doesn't mean we don't try.

3.you are confused. I did not misquote you, There are quotations marks around what is written because it comes from the amendment. Just after the quote it has a citation and the title of the amendment. This is quite clear. It flat out says sites like face book would not be shutdown. I have literally found a piece of the bill that directly states your claim is wrong. this is undeniable and rare in a debate. please note

4&5. The author of the bill could be a drunk who regularly buys bootleg DVDs from his local hustler, this isn't grounds to refute the logic in the bill. just for shits and giggles, Jefferson wrote that 'Every man is created equal' and yet he owned slaves. The fact is today the united states holds those words to be true. that the author of those words didn't walk the walk doesn't make Americas affirmation of them any less legitimate.

6.The only community that would be liable to be shutdown would be those that partake in piracy. As piracy is illegal. voters, whether are or not you disagree, the arguments my opponent has presented do not have any grounds or explanations.

7. This is not a referendum, PEOPLE are not voting for this. This bill will be voted on by congressmen and congresswoman. Believe me they have the Internet.

This bill isn't censoring the Internet. This claim is out of nowhere without any explanation or grounds. This bill seeks to protect copyrights, and amendments have already been made to it. These are not refuted. we can all rest easier knowing that it now includes provisions that spell out domestic sites like face book and twitter do not fall under the purview of this bill. It is strictly for overseas piracy. My opponent should have mention DNS blocking which was a concern, but even that has now been amended.

My only contention: This bill has evolved and will continue to evolve, that is unless we stop it dead in its tracks. This debate and protest have only made a more refined bill, and it will continue too until we have a bill that protects property owners without encroaching on the liberty of others. That is why you should cast your ballot for the con, because clear evidence has been presented that not only dispel the misconceptions of the pro, but provide a relief from the nightmare myths surrounding SOPA.
Thank you

7.

3.

2.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by C-L-Fox 5 years ago
C-L-Fox
well this was a great debate and a agree that we barely scratched the surface and this bill could go much longer. thank you for accepting, i aprecciate it.
Posted by gizmo1650 5 years ago
gizmo1650
As it stands now, SOPA grants exemptions for sites like thepiratebay.org, becuase it has a domestic dns.
Posted by Lesterfreeman 5 years ago
Lesterfreeman
haha good debate man, I'm glad i took it. forced me to reserch this. Yeah we'll see the outcome, i feel like there coould be ten mored debates on this bill its so large. We didn't evnough dig our nails in. I would say that some other two debators should take it on, but the bill is pretty much dead now
Posted by C-L-Fox 5 years ago
C-L-Fox
lol you did kinda get a little big at the end there but its fine i liked it. made the dabate more interesting. once agian thank you Lesterfreeman for accepting the debate and i look foward to seeing the outcome. Also i hope that this showed some unknown info on the subject on both sides.
Posted by Lesterfreeman 5 years ago
Lesterfreeman
Th rick santorum in me came out at there end there didn't it
Posted by renucemi000 5 years ago
renucemi000
I am pro to stop SOPA. Installing censorship in any form, blocking websites, killing the notion of "fair use", disrespecting user submitted content, reducing privacy, etc., is not only a huge blow to the progressive development of the Internet, but also a general assault on democracy and freedom of expression – something we give people collective tools for.
Posted by shepamor000 5 years ago
shepamor000
If you are going to debate on two topics then you wanna support/ talk about both. Therefore the pro side does need to talk about both and not just talk about one more then the other.
Posted by julianneill 5 years ago
julianneill
The Pro stated a little about SOPA, But he didn't state any about PIPA (Ip Protection Act).

But I look forward in watching this debate
Posted by C-L-Fox 5 years ago
C-L-Fox
I thank Lesterfreeman for accepting this challenge because on the contrary to some comments displayed here many people don't understand the bills in their whole.
Posted by Yarely 5 years ago
Yarely
Seriously who the hell would oppose this argument? This debate is impossible for Con
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 5 years ago
lannan13
C-L-FoxLesterfreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: PIPA was bannd, I hate these acts, Lester gets sources and the convincing arguements.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
C-L-FoxLesterfreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a good case but the con showed how since the bills are still in congress there is still time to clarify some of the concerning parts of the bills which if the correct modifications are made will actually make the internet a better place. If the resolution was "SOPA and PIPA bills in their current form right now should not become law" then Pro would have won. Hats off to the con though for pulling off a cool upset. He did have some grammar problems though but still he used more sources...
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
C-L-FoxLesterfreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate to vote Con on this, but I'm forced to. Con had stronger arguments and better refutations of Pro's often fallacious and irrelevant claims. Con's strongest point: as internet companies (and the ACLU, Law Professors, etc..) indicate flaws in the bill, it will evolve into a bill that protects copyrights and stops piracy, yet without usurping our personal liberty. If I see "My opponite" one more time, I will probably vomit all over my computer. Con had sources...